ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2024
Rights-based reproductive services in medical schools in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Chandigarh, India: baseline findings of mixed-methods implementation research.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mixed-methods study on awareness of sexual and reproductive rights among women in Chandigarh, India.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- Ethical principles across countries: does 'ethical' mean the same everywhere?Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is a need to assess and strengthen reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools that play a key role in medical education and service delivery. This study presents the findings of baseline assessment across nine schools in two states and one union territory with objective to assess, identify the gaps and improve the status of reproductive rights and evidence-based family planning and abortion services in Indian medical schools.
methodsA convergent parallel mixed methods study was conducted in nine medical schools in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Chandigarh a Union territory in India from October 2018 to June 2019. In-depth interviews with 33 faculty from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology were conducted. The COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation) model of behaviours was used to qualitatively identify barriers and facilitators of reproductive rights-based family planning and abortion services. Reproductive health services provided to 104 women for family planning and abortion were observed quantitatively using a pre-tested checklist.
findingsProviders' preference bias in recommending contraceptive methods to specific clients (wherein sterilisation was offered to women with two or more children and IUCD to women with one child) was observed as barrier to reproductive rights. The facilitators of rights based reproductive services included well-informed faculty regarding providing dignified and respectful care. Barriers included infrastructure gaps, high workload, insufficient human resources affecting privacy, and lower awareness and decision-making power of clients. Family planning counselling using the cafeteria approach was offered in 69.4% of cases, 31.6% of women seeking abortion services were offered counselling on both family planning and abortion. Sterilisation or IUD insertion was a pre-condition in 36.8% of women requesting an abortion.
conclusionsRight-based reproductive services around family planning counselling and abortion services were delivered partially despite the medical schools' trained faculty, mainly due to provider bias, high workload, and less autonomy and lower awareness of reproductive rights among women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.